The Complex Hillslope Hydrological Cycle

Water flow type and residence time in the watershed

Forest cover and water quantity form experimental evidence

Integration of water production into the forest management. Multi-functionality and prerequisites

• When speaking of forest influence on water is essential to clarify which attribute of water: quantity, quality and regime, under consideration

• Eureka!!!! After those experimental evidences we have found out the solution: Spread and cover of concrete the basins, as I saw in Kitt Peak Nat Observatory Az USA, and will get water to meet worst prospects

• Forests are Multi-functional entities which have to meet diverse demands, such as, ecological, (hydrological),economical, cultural, productive, protective, recreational, scientific, landscape, game,

wildlife,…. Which have to be harmonized

• Forests are essential to protect water quality and soil. Riparian zones are key to protect water.

E (Hm3) = Ni q (m3/sg) - a ki (Hm3)

Forest management oriented to water production. Some orientations to consider (from USFS ¨NED¨¨)

• Minimal management unit 20 ha. All the stands adyacent to water, wetlands or riparian buffer should meet:

• Evergreen species should comprise less than 70% of basal area

• Relative density of overstory should be less than 70%

• If stand is in the seedling size class, relative density should be less than 30% and sprouts should comprise less than 30% stand

• Treatments may include: • Reducing stand stocking to below 70% relative density

• Using short rotations

• Encouraging hardwood species

• Encouraging regeneration from seedlings

• Accounting will continue to be based on a national “Forest Reference Level” (FRL) value of projected emissions/removals, against which the future emissions/removals will be compared for accounting purposes

Art 8: Accounting for managed forest land

Rem

oval

s (-)

Emiss

ions

(+)

Net

cha

nge

in

carb

on st

ock Dashed black line = Projected reference level

Red-green dashed line = Actual performance Less removals than reference level = Debits

More removals than reference level = Credits

• Maintains 3.5% cap of Member State's base year emissions from 2/CMP.7 • Maintains the practice of "technical corrections" to ensure methodological

consistency between FRLs and GHG inventories

Option current offset of total EU emissions (%)

Increase in

C stock

in existing forests (CO2 sink or “removal”)

≈ 10% (only 1% accounted

under KP in 2008-2012)

in wood products

≈ 1%

Substitution effects by

wood (approximate

figures)

Material

≈ 1-2%

Energy

≈ 4-5%

Options for mitigating climate change through forest management

LULUCF

Other GHG sectors

Reported/accounted in:

Trade-offs exist between options, each with its temporal dynamics of emissions. E.g. more harvest usually means less forest sink in the short term but more substitution effects

Art 8: rationale, principles and criteria of the new FRL

Impact of > harvest (short term)

<<

>

>

>

The most effective forest mitigation strategy is the one that optimizes the sum of the above options in a given time frame, while being consistent with long term objectives.

What science says on the best forest mitigation strategy?

short answer is:

IT DEPENDS

The optimal mix of mitigation options is very much country-specific (e.g. forest and market characteristics, policy priorities…)

Forest management policies are responsibility of MS An EU LULUCF legislation does not identify the best mitigation strategy (harvesting

more or less), but promotes an accurate accounting, including that bioenergy is properly accounted for, consistently with the goal of achieving a balance between

emissions and sinks in the 2nd half of this century

(see Figure 5.12 from COM(2016)249, LULUCF IA)

Impact of forests getting older Even keeping current management, in some MS the forest sink may decline due a age-related need of extra harvest temporary effect

Impact of forest aging and policies on the forest sink

Impact of additional policies stimulating harvest E.g. shortened rotation cycles greater decline of the sink in short term, but greater substitution effects extra harvest is not necessarily bad for reaching a GHG reduction target

?

Past Forest Reference Levels (under Kyoto) allowed policy assumptions

The new FRLs will be based on the continuation of current forest management practice and intensity (documented for 1990-2009).